Pastor DL (Darryl L.) Foster is the founder and executive director of Witness Freedom Ministries. Since April 1990, DL Foster has dedicated his life to serving the Lord and his people with truth and faithful witness to the radical life changing power of Jesus Christ. He is a personal witness, after experiencing deliverance from homosexual sin over 22 years ago.

You can’t be too careful and I often try to check quotes to ensure they were, indeed said by the person claimed and also to ensure the context in which they are quoted is correct. In this case – I’m not familiar with “D.L. Foster”, can’t locate him in Wikipedia and the only google results I get are the quote you listed … repeated infinitely on Atheist websites.

But I disagree with the quote – since there is a certain amount of historical significance to the Bible. I’m talking real history here. The problem with ancient “histories” is that NONE of them were 100 percent correct. I highly doubt that Julius Caesars account of the Gallic War is completely correct but it is one of the only accounts we have of that war – if not the only one. There is a lot of myth in the Bible – don’t get me wrong – but there are some vital historical clues in there.

Dear Krulac, THANK YOU! Without the Bible archeology would be way different and not in a good way. There’s also historians who acknowledge that Jesus existed (these historians wrote outside the Bible). 1 of the reasons I’m a Christian is because of the above (I don’t want to follow anyone there’s no historical proof for). Thanks again for speaking up. It’s very needed and is 1 of the reasons I started posting here.

Boston Shutdown: Americans, for the most part – are a population of soft-stomached sissies protected by an increasingly smaller warrior class of decreasing intellect and effectiveness.

Can I form a citizen’s group for people who don’t give a shit about creationism and whether or not it’s taught in public schools? As a parent – I’m already adjusted to telling my children that certain things they learn in school just aren’t true.

Why block creationism? The schools are already teaching MANY “religious” and “faith based” concepts. I say to those who don’t want creationism in schools … “well then, get the teaching of Global Warming out of the schools then.” And that would also apply to the “equal opportunity” curriculum that most schools teach – which is racial superiority curriculum actually. This is just another case where two extremes are fighting each other (ACLU VS Creationists) and I just don’t feel bothered (WITH ALL OUR OTHER PROBLEMS) to choose a side.

Armagh is just over the county border from me “among the bushes”, but the reference to the railway (even if it once passed at the end of the garden) and particularly the “rhapsody” left me completely flummoxed. I didn’t realise that there were words to it, but then I was thinking of “Rhapsody in Blue”, which I discarded in favour of “Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini” until I realised that I was thinking of “Swedish Rhapsody”. And now that I see that it’s actually a song with words, well, I’ll retire to my cave, and remain a professional 18th century anchorite.

“Badge-licking” is right. They don’t present any arguments. They just say “terrorism! cameras!” I wonder if those micro-brained state worshipers realized that London is heavily surveilled and had a deadly attack in 2005.

Naw, it didn’t. It came from the Democratic Party after they regained control of the South from carpetbaggers, but Democrats were not progressive at that time (and they aren’t today, in fact). Nice try, though.

Did you read the article? It was Wilson, the arch-progressive, who dramatically expanded segregation & gave federal sanction to Jim Crow. This ain’t new; Jim Crow historians have pointed it out for years. I just felt that article expressed it fairly succinctly.

Those who want to control others are always the enemy, no matter what form they take, what they call themselves or what they claim as their motivation.

I tend not to read anything from the National Review due to its lack of credibility, but I will for the sake of politeness I will read this article. But, I doubt that “progressive” meant the same thing that it does today as it did back then. For instance, I highly doubt that Wilson was a big champion of LGBT rights back in the day.

Don’t take it wrong that I think the National Review lacks credibility. I also think that the NYT lacks credibility as well, and I barely read it for the same reason.

Exactly. Just because Wilson was known as an arch-progressive, doesn’t mean his actions were representative of all progressives then or now. It is convenient, however, to gloss over that distinction for the sake of political labeling – it’s lazy thinking. A couple of tidbits related to this:

1.) A recent article noted that if “liberal/democratic” policies and “conservative/republican” policies were presented to voters without being identified as liberal or conservative, a solid majority preferred Democratic policies. Once the parties behind the policies were revealed, political ideology and tribalism kicked in.

What does this tell us? That a sizable portion of American voters are driven by blind ideology rather than sound reasoning.

2.) A recent article at Slate Magazine called Chauvinist Pygmalion discusses how Thomas Day, a man who’s every philosophical utterance might have been called “progressive”, was, in his life, extremely (and unexpectedly) cruel in his treatment, and opinion, of women.

What does this tell us? That we must separate the substance of an argument or cause from the person making it. Analyze the argument, not the person (who may not live up to their own standards).

3.) A recent article in the Telegraph shows that Shakespeare was a grain hoarder. Imagine that. His personal life didn’t exactly match the exalted insight attributed to his poetry. Oxfordians, the creationists of Shakespeare studies, naturally conclude that it couldn’t have been Shakespeare.

First – you didn’t link any of the articles you quoted – so who knows if they were garbage surveys or not?

Second – you’re making a excessive leap in logic in concluding this …

What does this tell us? That a sizable portion of American voters are driven by blind ideology rather than sound reasoning.

In order to conclude that – you have to assume that those surveyed used “sound reasoning” in selecting the policies that were most “preferred” by them. I do not think that is a reasonable assumption when it comes to the current crop of Americans.

I didn’t link to the articles because links are commonly weeded out by spam software. If you try Google, you can easily locate the referenced articles.

“When the Business Insider polled registered voters and asked for their preferences among three Congressional plans floated to avoid the looming “sequestration” cuts in Washington, they found that when stripped of their partisan labels, the policies most favorable to the majority were those offered by the progressive wing of the Democratic caucus.”

Put that quote in Google and you will find the article.

//In order to conclude that – you have to assume that those surveyed used “sound reasoning”//

The point is that they used reason rather than ideology. Any decision based on reason rather than ideology is going to be a more ‘sound’ and reasoned decision.

I don’t see any evidence here that preferring progressive policies in the absence of party labels is more or less rational than preferring a set of policies simply because one party or the other proposed them.

Why is it more rational to base ones opinions on fact rather than ideology? Do you really need evidence to sort this out? Okay. Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s use *you*, Kevin Wilson, as a test subject. One political party (which one is irrelevant) tells you, who are blind folded, that if you take another step you will fall off a cliff. The other political party tells you that if you take another step you will be just fine. What flipping fool isn’t going to take off his blind fold and – just – look?!? — or are you just going to do what your party tells you to do? I rest my case.

This assumes that, in the absence of party labels, respondents to the survey (or voters in the booth) use facts and evidence to guide their choices. I see no evidence for this claim.

As for the thought experiment; I don’t vote or pay any mind to political parties beyond treating them as a kind of gallows comedy. I don’t think it matters whether voters are blindfolded (by party labels); even if they weren’t, they would willingly keep their eyes tightly closed to the possible cliff ahead of them. Indeed, even if this were not the case, most of them are functionally blind in any case; were their eyes open, they would still see nothing. The political parties are equally blind, for the most part.

//This assumes that, in the absence of party labels, respondents to the survey (or voters in the booth) use facts//

You keep moving the goalpost. What the poll demonstrated is that if voters were given facts (in this case the “facts” are the “plans” without political biasing) then the outcome of their choices is based on a comparison of the content rather than political ideology. Simple as that,

//This assumes that, in the absence of party labels, respondents to the survey (or voters in the booth) use facts and evidence to guide their choices. I see no evidence for this claim. //

Have you looked for evidence? I doubt it. I’ll take that as a rhetorical point, and beyond *my* scope. That also dodges the point I made in the post you’re responding to: “It is more rational to base ones opinions on fact rather than ideology.” Whether or not voters actually do so is a red herring.

Me? I vote. You betcha’. And I like to think my voting is evidence based, but I’m only human. I do my best.

I opened by saying there was no evidence that preferring progressive policies in the absence of labels was inherently rational (it being possible that progressive policies are, themselves, completely irrational on average); I haven’t deviated from that position in the comment you just responded to.

I’m sure you like to think you’re an evidence-based voter; I’m similarly sure the people who nullify your vote with theirs believe that they too are evidence-based voters. I suspect you are not an expert in, or even vaguely familiar with, every facet of every field the government tampers in; your claim to being an evidence-based voter is dubious at best.

//I opened by saying there was no evidence that preferring progressive policies in the absence of labels was inherently rational//

Your opening statement was a “straw man” response. You still haven’t explained why a decision based on facts is no better than one based on ideology. Your entire argument amounts to: “Oh well, everybody in America is really stupid and can’t possibly make informed decisions ‘anyway cause they can’t possibly know everything anyway and so there’s no such thing as an informed decision and so all decisions are ideological and so there.”

That’s called moving the goalpost. I say why informed decisions are better, and you respond that people aren’t smart enough to think like that anyway.

Oh wait… I’m putting words in your mouth. You said “most. As in “most of them are functionally blind in any case”

Pretty hard to argue with a guy whose button-holed “most” of the electorate.

Your original point, “It is more rational to base ones opinions on fact rather than ideology.” is logically responded to be saying “most people aren’t capable of choosing beyond ideology anyways”. No goalpost has been moved, I simply countered your point. You seem be complaining that, essentially, I and other are not agreeing with you.

Pretty hard to argue with a guy whose button-holed “most” of the electorate.

You could always try to argue that voters are rational and well-informed. Good luck with that.

//So did you want to disagree with me and claim that voters are rational and well-informed?//

No, I want to disagree with you and say that voters will make different choices when their choices aren’t driven by ideology, and that such choices, based on facts, are more desirable to ones driven by dogma, superstition or ideology. I’ve been saying that from the get-go. Why would I make a massive counter-generalization after criticizing yours? Thank for the invitation, and no thanks.

If all you want to argue is that voters’ choices are different with different inputs, then you’re absolutely correct. Of course, if you’re not willing to contest the point that the median voter is irrational and ill-informed, I’m not sure why you think one set of inputs is going to produce an inherently more rational voting pattern than that generated by any other kind of input.

//Of course, if you’re not willing to contest the point that the median voter is irrational and ill-informed, I’m not sure why you think one set of inputs is going to produce an inherently more rational voting pattern//

Kevin, I *did* contest the point. You’re off in la-la land. What I refused to do was to indulge in the same sort of massive and unwarranted generalization that you did. You seem to think that if you’re not right, then the opposite must be true. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. I find it curious that you’re having so much trouble with the poll results. The only conclusion I can draw is that it contradicts your favored political narrative. If voters had chosen the conservative plans, I suspect you wouldn’t be having quite so much trouble. Maybe you wouldn’t conclude that “most” voters are hopelessly stupid? I don’t know though. The issue of whether the progressive plans are superior isn’t one I’m addressing. What I’m asserting (ad nauseum) is that voters who considered the facts of a given plan, apparently chose plans that contradicted their ideology. What this tells us is that voters will vote against their own interests for the sake of ideology. This isn’t rational behavior. Period.

You seem to think that if you’re not right, then the opposite must be true

Either the median voter is rational or it isn’t.

I find it curious that you’re having so much trouble with the poll results. The only conclusion I can draw is that it contradicts your favored political narrative. If voters had chosen the conservative plans, I suspect you wouldn’t be having quite so much trouble. Maybe you wouldn’t conclude that “most” voters are hopelessly stupid? I don’t know though.

1) I’m not conservative. In fact, between the two of us you probably have more in common with conservatives than I do in terms of policy preferences. What an amusing mistake to make only one breath after accusing me of offering a false dichotomy.

2) I’m not ‘having trouble’ with the poll results; I understand what they mean just fine (in fact, as a ‘pollster’, I bet I understand what they say better than you). It’s your dubious interpretation of them I have an issue with. The fact that the outputs change when the inputs do does not inherently suggest that the new outputs are any more correct or rationally-derived than the old outputs.

What this tells us is that voters will vote against their own interests for the sake of ideology. This isn’t rational behavior. Period.

I never said you *were*. I said I suspected the poll results might conflict with your political narrative (I still do), but that I didn’t know.

//; I understand what they mean just fine (in fact, as a ‘pollster’, I bet I understand what they say better than you).//

That’s just posturing.

//The fact that the outputs change when the inputs do does not inherently suggest that the new outputs are any more correct or rationally-derived than the old outputs.//

Are they any more correct? I’ve repeatedly said that’s not the issue. Are they any more rational? Well, again, this gets back to your stated claim that the individual is incapable of making a rational choice. You just did it again. That’s another logical fallacy called Poisoning the Well.

In your case it goes like this:

Voter XY&Z make a decision. You assert unfavorable information (they are always irrational) about XY&Z. Therefore no matter *what* choices are made by XY&Z, they will always be irrational. Ta-da! No matter what the results of poll could have been, it will always confirm your narrative!

Then why bring it up; why would the success of one party’s preferences make me agree with your hypothesis? This is a common thread in your comments (I’ve seen the same in your back-and-forth with krulac); you write something that plainly implies another, then deny making the implication in the first place. Consequently, most of what you type is content-free fluff and posturing, either due to bad writing or “arguing” in bad faith. As a result, this will be my last comment in this exchange.

You’ve consistently whinged that voters are more rational when deciding based on descriptions of plans rather than on party labels, but even after repeated prompts to do so, you have failed to effectively argue this point. Where’s the evidence that favoring progressive policies is more rational or self-interested than simply rallying around a political party? You haven’t presented any, and I’ve come to believe that you’re incapable of doing so.

The logical response to my critique that simply removing one type of irrational policy support does not make the resulting preferences rational or self-interested could be easily addressed by providing data or argumentation that suggests that voters are, indeed, rational and self-interested; you have consistently failed to do either. If you can’t show that voters are rational, you have no basis declaring that preferring progressive policies without labels is more rational than a more mixed result without labels.

//Then why bring it up; why would the success of one party’s preferences make me agree with your hypothesis?//

Because I can’t fathom why you have such trouble conceding that it’s better to base an opinion on factual information rather than ideology. Rather than address **this** assertion, which has been my argument all along (it’s in all my comments above) your only counterpoint is that everybody is too stupid to make decisions anyway, so the poll is meaningless. That’s among the most arrogant and pompous arguments I’ve read.

// you write something that plainly implies another, then deny making the implication//

No I don’t. You would like it if I labeled you a conservative, then you could posture all the way to the moon and back (and were well on your way), but I didn’t. You don’t have to be a conservative to dislike progressive politics. It was *you* who jumped to that conclusions (Fallacy of the excluded middle).

//You’ve consistently whinged that voters are more rational when deciding based on descriptions of plans rather than on party labels, but even after repeated prompts to do so, you have failed to effectively argue this point. //

What a bunch of rubbish. You remember your response to the “blind fold” thought experiment? Your response was barely first grade:

1.) (Irrelevant) “I don’t vote or pay any mind to political parties… ”

2.) ((Contradicted by the *evidence* of the poll .) “I don’t think it matters whether voters are blindfolded (by party labels)…”

3.) (Poisoning the Well) “…they would willingly keep their eyes tightly closed to the possible cliff ahead of them.”

4.) (Poisoning the Well) “…most of them are functionally blind in any case…”

5.) (Irrelevant.) “The political parties are equally blind, for the most part.”

“The logical response to my critique that simply removing one type of irrational policy support does not make the resulting preferences rational or self-interested could be easily addressed by providing data or argumentation that suggests that voters are, indeed, rational and self-interested”

You just don’t understand the point of the poll. The point was not to demonstrate that their votes were more rational. The point was to demonstrate that voters make different decisions when they are blinded to party affiliation. *That* was the point of the poll. What they are willing to vote for and their self-identified party affiliation may not be the same.

*My* point is that any individual will make a more rational decision if they base their decisions on facts rather than ideology (non-facts).

The survey you’re citing here says that people preferred “Progressive” policies concerning THE SEQUESTRATION. Then with this quote … you somehow expand a survey done on one issue to victoriously blanket the whole of the Progressive cause …

A recent article noted that if “liberal/democratic” policies and “conservative/republican” policies were presented to voters without being identified as liberal or conservative, a solid majority preferred Democratic policies.

So even though people may have preferred the Progressive approach to sequestration – that has no bearing on whether or not they’d agree with Progressives on gun control – in fact, the majority doesn’t.

You will of course agree that a lot of survey’s are pure bunk with lousy methodology. I never read how a poll is summarized by any outlet of the media – I always go to the actual survey and look at the methodology. Many times – I can see glaring errors that no media outlet would ever mention and the survey can be dismissed and propaganda at that point.

My comment was accurate. It’s not my job to restate the article. I provided a quote so you could find it. Curiously, it’s you who misrepresent me. For example, at no point did I use the word progressive or, as you state, the “progressive cause”. My quote is there. Furthermore, I never stated that the individuals involved were *right* to choose the policies they did. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet when it comes to lefties, liberals and progressives. You’re fixated on the *fact* that the individuals in the poll chose progressive policies. That an ancillary point. My point is that informed opinions are, by definition, superior to choices based on dogma, prejudice or ideology. I stand by that, and so should you.

Your comment was inaccurate – do you still assert that that survey applied to ALL Progressive policies or all Liberal or all Democratic policies? It clearly states it did not and you did not highlight this very important fact about how that survey was LIMITED to one single issue.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet when it comes to lefties, liberals and progressives.

That’s affirmative. But I also argue vehemently with conservatives – there’s just not that many of them online but you should see me at work!!

I actually voted for the Progressive in the last election – Obama. But – at this point I think the whole thing is a rigged game and I just vote for the guy who will crash the system the soonest. He hasn’t disappointed me one bit.

You keep putting words into my mouth. Just give it up. You seem apoplectic that voters might choose “progressive” causes in a blind taste test – apoplectic – just, absolutely, apoplectic. Me? I don’t care. They could have gone the opposite direction. My point (isn’t this horse dead yet?) is that informed voters are better voters. I’m sorry they sided with the progressives, okay? Just sit down. Take a deep breath. Fan yourself if you have to. I think there might be some smelling salts around here somewhere…

Don’t kid yourself; that segment of the Democrat Party that Woodrow Wilson represented really was “Progressive” as modern self described “Progressives” use the term; that is to say he was fine with the lesser people (which included almost all whites too), so long as they didn’t get uppity and insist that they had rights just like real people, especially the right to have their own opinions. They are historically strong for eugenics – hence their love for Abortions for the Poor. And their policies are reliably such that the ethnic poor get held down, no matter what the Progressives may claim to the contrary.

The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive Left is contaminated heavily by a bunch of bossy would-be aristocrats and traumatized by the way the Working Class left them in the lurch after World War II; they desperately want to keep the brown-skinned people poor and dependent, because nobody else will tolerate being patronized by the elitist wannabes.

The intellectuals are in bed with the prisons, plutocrats and politicians. The problem is not who holds power; it’s the principle of power itself. NO human being, no matter how intelligent, wealthy, well-born, popular, or indoctrinated in the popular ideology of the day, can be trusted with it. Period. End of sentence. And anyone who claims otherwise is a tool of the oppressors.

Yes, SOME government is necessary to protect the weak from the strong and the overly-trusting from the deceptive. But anyone entrusted with that minimal power needs to be watched, checked, impeded and harassed so he cannot use one more particle of it than absolutely necessary.

So let’s see here – there is a government / industrial plot to force blacks not to graduate high school, not to go to college, but to get involved in drugs and crime?

That would be an interesting story. I actually worked at the White House for 3 years in the early 90’s – and I can tell you that our lawmakers are not smart enough to pull off a conspiracy of that size without getting caught.

Check out what urban renewal did to black communities and what rent controls did to Harlem. Both of these policies were advocated by the intelligentsia. People with bad ideas AND the force of gov’t behind them can effect very nasty outcomes regardless of the nobility (or not) of their motives.

“Urban Renewal” was the fault of Robert Moses and his copy-cat urban designers. The intellectuals of the time were wholeheartedly against this process.

In regards to rent control, I don’t see how that would fail Black folks. If anything, they have been victims of gentrification, which rent control is supposed to prevent. But it hasn’t lately because rent-controlled apartments are becoming few annd far between.

Rent control discourages development. Development increases density (supply), which reduces the price. Reducing the price slows or prevents gentrification. QED, rent control promotes gentrification (though the process would plausibly still exist without it).

This is the impact on minorities that I was writing about. The New Dealer intelligentsia supported this process. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that the left switched gears and began decrying it. On the other hand, The Foundation for Economic Education – the original “libertarian” think tank opposed urban renewal from its founding in the late 1940’s.

Redlining began with the National Housing Act of 1934 which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to improve housing conditions and standards, and later led to the formation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). While it was designed to develop housing for poor residents of urban areas, that act also required cities to target specific areas and neighborhoods for different racial groups, and certain areas of cities were not eligible to receive loans at all. This meant that ethnic minorities could only obtain mortgages in certain areas, and resulted in a large increase in the residential racial segregation in the United States.This was followed by the Housing Act of 1937, which created the U.S. Housing Agency and the nation’s first public housing program—the Low Rent Public Housing Program. This program began the large public housing projects that later became one of the hallmarks of urban renewal in the United States: it provided funding to local governments to build new public housing, but required that slum housing be demolished prior to any construction.

the working class before WWII were too busy surviving to sit around listening to intellectuals all day.

It almost sounds like you feel that was a bad thing.

My Grandparents WALKED from North Mississippi to the Gulf Coast with three kids and a mule with all their possessions. My Mom often tells the story of sleeping in a graveyard on the journey. They made it to the Gulf Coast and scratched out a very good living – which I am a beneficiary of. When my grandmother died at the age of 94 – I do not feel her life was “cheapened” by those “survival” experiences – in fact, I believe they were enriched by them.

That was common in the Depression and before. The only transportation many people could afford was their own two feet. However, there was also “train-hopping” as well, which could get you to your destination faster.

The word “progressive”, like “liberal”, has become as meaningless as “right-thinking” — every user of these words simply overloads (redefines) them. I prefer them in their original meanings as the adjectives of liberty and progress, which is why I will never apply either to anybody on the Left.

Real progress, in my view, is change that gives individuals more choices. So-called political “progressives”, then, have always been dead set against it.

As to Clark: I didn’t find his article at all compelling. Rather than ask a reasonable question, he made assertions lacking reason or evidence. So what if other cities didn’t do as Boston did? So what? Clark might reasonably ask if, ostensibly, “martial law” was a necessity, but he cannot proceed on the basis of unrelated events, to conclude that it was *not* necessary or advantageous. One might, for example (and using his air-headed reasoning) argue that if not for the lock down, the respective citizen might *not* have been anywhere near the boat and might *not* have discovered the bomber. Clark was simply spouting a loaded opinion, signifying nothing. I don’t know if your link was an endorsement, but it’s worth pointing out (if it was) that his editorial would seem to violate your own standards (which you set elsewhere in your blog) for evidence, evidence, evidence.

//Why block creationism?//

First answer: Duh.
Second answer: Because creationism presents itself as a science (it’s not in case you didn’t know that) rather than a fairy tale. I suppose more educated Americans wouldn’t mind creationism being taught along side Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs and Cinderella. Children have a finite time to learn and Americans shouldn’t be wasting their tax dollars teaching them ignorance rather than knowledge.

//…get the teaching of Global Warming…//

The study of humanity’s influence on the global climate is a science. Creationism is not. If that difference is beyond you or doesn’t concern you, then stop playing with the grown-ups and go back to your sandbox.

I’m always against the police state and the imposition of more control on people by government; I think there is copious and convincing evidence that the expansion of the state always decreases liberty, however much it may increase “security”. In other words, even if the Boston lockdown saved a few lives, the cost in terms of horrible legal and procedural precedent was much, much, MUCH too high.

//I’m always against the police state…however much it may increase “security”.//

Yes. Who wouldn’t be? But to equate Boston’s reaction to “the expansion of the state” is a rhetorical sleight of hand.

The author you linked to writes: ” The worst damage stemming from the Boston bombing will be if the security behemoths created or enlarged after 9/11, whose effectiveness is in doubt, were rejuvenated and expanded.”

Yes, but that’s an entirely different question as to whether Boston’s response was proper.

I’m just not seeing it. You’ve been sending link after link based on ideological predisposition, but not evidence. That’s fine. But one should acknowledge them as such. There are other articles out there that make very different arguments. Bloomberg news (are we surprised?) calls the response admirably calm.

I just wanted to note one (among other) absurdities in the article you linked:

//Even more bizarre, as the Jerusalem Post article states:

[C]onsider[] that from Monday – when the bombings took place – until Friday, there were two terrorists on the loose and there was no consideration of a lockdown.//

Why is that bizarre? This guy calls himself a prosecutor? Two terrorists were on the loose, yes; but the evidence argues that law enforcement weren’t sure who the bombers were or where they might be. There was no consideration of a lockdown *because* (despite the obvious insinuation) laws were being followed.

//Now, with one terrorist still free there is a lockdown? Shouldn’t the opposite have happened?//

No. Come on. The lock down occurred precisely because law enforcement knew who the terrorist was and roughly *where* he was; and because the bombers had murdered another individual and appeared perfectly willing to murder more. I have to laugh. Really. Just *what* was law enforcement supposed to do!?! Politely ask the guy to turn himself in? This is my point. All this hand-wringing is armchair quarterbacking.

You, myself, and others have a valid argument when we say that this response should be carefully studied, that it absolutely should *not* be an open door to broaden police powers; but we also don’t live in a perfect world. If there’s a sociopathic killer in my neighborhood and the feds, cops and army comes knocking on my door. A.) I’ll answer it. B.) I’ll have my hands on my head. C.) I’m going to thank them for being there. D.) I’m going to ask them if they’d like a doughnut. 🙂

And I will do absolutely NONE of those things, because I don’t feel their excuses justify infringing on my rights. The more excuses they’re given, the more they take. I’ve managed to keep myself safe without the help of cops (often in spite of their efforts to hinder me) for over four decades, and I’ll continue to for the next four.

I refuse to let prejudice and ideology trample reason. Any system of belief that refuses to draw distinctions, or admit to them, does more to threaten our rights than defend them. Over four decades, I’ve managed to free myself from the trap of polarized, ideological and fundamentalist thinking, and will continue to do so for the next four.

My Father, the adopted son of a Methodist minister, taught History of Science and Technology for forty years. Every year he taught a survey course in it, from about 1980 on, some student would get up in class and ask him about the “theory” of creationism. And he would reply “I have never understood why you people want to call the Revelation of Genesis a theory”

She said she was responsible for what happened at Waco, but was never punished for it, even with a simple dismissal from her position. Bill Clinton certainly contributed to the culture of lawlessness that permeates the government today.

My air-conditioning is on. That’s why I’m getting back to, well, much of anything. Publicly thanking Laura here, for taking me in and letting me enjoy her A/C. You’re a bit of diamond in a world with too much coal, Baby Doll.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".